See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228488787

Advanced body armor utilizing shear thickening fluids

Article · January 2003

CITATIONS READS

37 4,397

8 authors, including:

Norman Joseph Wagner Young Sil Lee

University of Delaware Kumoh National Institute of Technology
371 PUBLICATIONS   11,331 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   1,589 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Molecular Simulations of the Amorphous Polymers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Norman Joseph Wagner on 01 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Advanced Body Armor Utilizing
Shear Thickening Fluids
(AO01)

Dr. Eric D. Wetzel Prof. Norman J. Wagner

ewetzel@arl.army.mil 410-306-0851 wagner@che.udel.edu 302-831-8079
Young Sil Lee Keith Kirkwood
Army Research Laboratory Ron Egres John Kirkwood
Composites and Lightweight Structures Branch
Bldg. 4600, AMSRL-WM-MB University of Delaware
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 Dept. of Chemical Engineering and
Center for Composite Materials
Newark, DE 19716

23rd Army Science Conference

Orlando, FL
3 December 2002
 Outline

• Background
– Body armor
– Shear thickening fluids (STFs)
– STF / Kevlar composite

• Experiments
– Ballistic results
– Flexibility tests

• Mechanisms of energy absorption in STF composite

• Continuing work
 Body Armor
• Conventional body armor
– 20-40 layers of neat Kevlar
• Rigid ceramic inserts for high threat situations
– Torso protection only
• Extremities protection
– Extremities: arms, legs, neck PASGT Vest
– Battlefield statistics from WWII, Korea (Reister, 1973) Kevlar® 29

• ~ 16% of deaths due to trauma to extremities

• ~ 70% of non-fatal injures to extremities
• Currently no armor for extremities
– Conventional materials (i.e. neat Kevlar) too bulky, stiff
– Material requirements
• Flexible
• Low bulk
• Lightweight Interceptor Vest
• Protective Kevlar® KM2
– Minimum level: frag / shrapnel protection
 Shear Thickening Fluid (STF)
Rheology of ethylene glycol based STF
10
6
• Liquid phase highly filled with
φ=0.62
10
5
φ=0.57 rigid, colloidal particles
4
10
• At high shear rates, hydro-
viscosity
η (Pa s)
10
3
dynamic forces overcome
10
2
repulsive interparticles forces,
10
1
and hydroclusters form
10
0
• Particles collide, material
200 nm -1
10 becomes macroscopically rigid
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
.
shear rate
γ (1/s)

equilibrium shear thinning shear thickening

increasing shear rate

 Application to Body Armor
• Impregnate Kevlar fabric with shear thickening fluid
• At low shear rates (normal motion)
– STF behaves like a liquid
– High flexibility, little or no impediment to motion
• At high shear rates (ballistic impact)
– Relative motion of yarns / fibers within fabric deforms STF at
high rate
– STF transitions to rigid phase, enhances ballistic protection of
fabric

STF

Kevlar
fabric

before impact during impact

 Materials
• Shear thickening fluid
– Colloidal silica particles
(avg particle size: ~450 nm)
– Ethylene glycol (EG) or polyethylene
glycol (PEG) carrier fluid
• Advantages over water carrier fluid:
– Wets Kevlar moderately
– Environmentally stable
200 nm
– Final particle concentration: 55-65 vol%
colloidal silica particles
• Kevlar
– KM-2 Kevlar® fabric
– Style 706, 600 denier (180 g/m2)
• Composite preparation
– Dilute STF with ethanol
– Wet diluted STF into Kevlar
– Evaporate ethanol in oven (80°C for 20 min)
10 µm

STF-impregnated Kevlar fabric

 Ballistic Experiments
• Targets
– Impregnate Kevlar with varying amounts, patterns, types of STF
– Encapsulate impregnated Kevlar in polyethylene film
– Sandwich target between aluminum foil faces
– 2”x2” in size
mounting adhesive
frame tape

target
• Ballistic tests clay witness
– 0.22 cal FSP
– Velocity ~ 825 fps
– Target set in frame,
not clamped
– Clay witness
• Quantify ballistic performance in terms of depth of penetration
• Use clay ballistic curves to relate penetration depth to energy
absorbed by target
 STF Rheological Properties
• Shear thickening transition at shear rate of ~ 101-103 s-1
Rheology of ethylene glycol based STF
6
10

5
φ=0.62
10
φ=0.57
4
10
η (Pa s)(Pa s)
3
10
viscosity

2
10

1
10

0
10

-1
10

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
.
shear rate
γ (1/s) (s-1)

• Shear rate during ballistic experiments

projectile velocity 244 m/s
= = 104-105 s-1
projectile diameter 0.56 cm
– Ballistic impact should transition fluid to rigid state
 Effect of STF Impregnation
• Impregnation of STF into Kevlar is critical to enhance ballistic
performance of neat fabric
20

A D
15
Penetration depth (mm)

B E
10

C F

5 Legend:
single Kevlar layer

STF fluid

4 Kevlar layers impregnated

with STF fluid
0
A B C D E F
Target geometry
 Effect of Volume of STF
• Adding more STF increases energy absorption in target
• Adding neat ethylene glycol (EG) or dry silica powder of equal
mass has less effect on energy absorption
95

90
Energy Dissipation (%)

85

80 STF impregnated 4-Kevlar

EG impregnated 4-Kevlar
Dry silica impregnated 4-Kevlar
75

70

65
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Target mass (g)

Absorbed Energy
Energy Dissipation (%) = × 100
Initial Impact Energy
 Comparison of STF Kevlar with Neat
Kevlar
• For targets of equal weight, STF-impregnated Kevlar
demonstrates similar ballistic performance to neat Kevlar

100
STF-impregnated targets have
4 layers of Kevlar
95 significantly fewer layers of
Kevlar than the comparable
90
neat Kevlar targets
Energy Dissipation (%)

14 layers of Kevlar
85
10 layers of Kevlar STF impregnated 4-Kevlar
80 EG impregnated 4-Kevlar
4 layers of Kevlar Neat Kevlar
75

70

65

60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Weight of Sample (g)
 Flexibility / Bulk of STF-Impregnated
Kevlar
• STF-impregnated Kevlar targets are thinner and more flexible than
neat Kevlar targets with comparable ballistic performance

θ=13o
θ=50o θ=51o

20 g weight

4-layer Kevlar: 10-layer Kevlar: 2mL STF impregnated

Thickness: 1.4 mm Thickness: 3.0 mm 4-layer Kevlar:
Weight: 1.9 g Weight: 4.7 g Thickness: 1.5 mm
Weight: 4.8 g
 Effect of STF Patterning
• Compare fully-impregnated Kevlar with pattern-impregnated Kevlar
– All patterns with 6 layers of Kevlar

95

90
Energy Dissipation (%)

center edge stripe

85
Impregnation pattern has little or
Neat Kevlar
Center Patterned STF
no quantitative effect on depth of
80 Edge Patterned STF penetration
Stripe Patterned STF
Full STF
75
0 2 4 6 8 10
Weight of Target (g)
 Effect of STF Patterning (cont’d)
• Pattern of STF fundamentally influences the failure pattern /
mechanism in target
 Effect of Particle Anisotropy
• Anisotropic CaCO3 particles with aspect ratio of 5:1
– Less volume of particles required to achieve
shear thickening
• Secondary benefit: low cost, readily available
particles → applicable to large scale testing

30 3
10
25 φ = 0.51
Dissipated Energy (J)

20 2
10
15

η (Pa s)
10
1
10
5
Isotropic (Spherical) STF with 4 Kevlar
0 Anisotrpic STF with 4 Kevlar
0
10 -2 -1 0 1
0 10 10 10 10 10
.
Weight of Target (g) γ (1/s)
 Mechanism of Ballistic Energy
Absorption in STF Composite
• Mechanisms of energy absorption in conventional fabric armors
– Yarn pullout
– Fiber plastic deformation
– Fiber fracture
• Compare impacted targets
(4 layers of Kevlar with and without STF)
– Less pullout in STF composite first layer of Kevlar (back three
– More fiber fracture in STF composite layers show comparable pullout)

unimpregnated Kevlar
STF appears to be “grabbing” yarns, preventing
inter-yarn mobility at high strain rates

• Possible sources of increased energy

absorption in STF composite
– STF restricts yarn motion, allows yarns to
be loaded to failure → energy absorbed by
first layer of Kevlar (back
fiber fracture three layers show little
pullout, no fracture)
– STF increases pullout energy, less pullout
required to achieve high energy absorption STF-impregnated Kevlar
 Continuing Work
Isolation and Analysis of Energy Absorption Mechanisms
• Quasistatic fiber pullout test

• High velocity ballistic tests

100

90

Energy Dissipation (%)

80
2.2

STF
2 PEG
70
Normalized Pullout Energy

1.8

60
1.6 Energy Dissipation (%) - 7K
Energy Dissipation (%) - 11K
1.4 50 Energy Dissipation (%) - STF

1.2
40
1 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Target mass (g)
0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
% Liquid Impregnation
View publication stats

Continuing Work
Material and Target Design
• Materials
– STF material
• Particle anisotropy
• Particle size
– Possibility for enhanced energy absorption mechanisms at
very small particle sizes
• Particle material -> polymeric, rubber particles
– Lower density particles for reduced target weight
– Softer particles for modification of energy absorption
mechanisms
• Particle surface energy
– Fabric – Architecture
• Denier • Patterning / STF-to-fabric ratio
• Weave • Layer sequencing
• Fiber type
• Test configuration
– Larger target sizes
– Higher velocities